Having been caught engaged in out-and-out fraud, Obama engages in a familiar pattern to cover up his lies *UPDATED*

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively. For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment. If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured. This pathological outlook means that, when Obama is caught in what ordinary people would characterize an out-and-out lie, he engages in a cascading cover-up of lies, all dictated, not by objective facts, but by his needs at the moment.

Barack Obama has been “gaslighting” the American people

Think of it this way: We’re all living out the movie Gaslight, with Obama as the dangerously manipulative, dishonest Charles Boyer character, and the American public as the hapless, helpless Ingrid Bergman character, whom Boyer is trying to drive mad so that he can take her wealth. (Which raises the question whether Ted Cruz is the Joseph Cotten character who rides to the rescue….)

Even thought I’m right about something depressing, I’m human enough to take some pleasure in having been right in the first place. So, forgive me for analyzing Obama’s latest lies, and his lie about those lies, using a post I wrote five-and-a-half years ago, when I first realized he was using the narcissist’s classic approach to lying and manipulation.

Here’s Obama’s original series of lies about Obamacare, all of which he repeated ad nauseum:

Just yesterday, Obama’s presented his latest version of the “truth” (by which I mean a “truth” direct from Obama’s mouth, rather than through his official spokespeople or media proxies):

Obama is also a fairly compulsive liar, something that highlights myriad other problems. That is, whenvever he’s caught in a problematic situation (ah, those friends of his), rather than making a clean breast of it, or a good defense, he instead engages in a perfect storm of ever-spiraling affirmative defenses, with the common denominator always being that it’s everyone’s fault but Obamas.

For those who are not lawyers, let me explain what affirmative defenses are. A complaint contains allegations that the defendant committed myriad acts of wrongdoing. In response, the defendant does two things. First, he denies everything except his own name, and he’d deny that too, if he could. Next, he issues affirmative defenses, which concede the truth of the accusations, but deny that they have any legal or practical meaning.

As an example of how this plays out, imagine a complaint alleging that I smashed my car into a fence, destroying it. I’d start by saying, “No, I didn’t.” Then I’d begin the affirmative defenses: (1) “Okay, I did bring my car into contact with the fence, but I didn’t actually hurt the fence.” (2) “Okay, I hurt the fence, but I didn’t hurt it badly enough to entitle its owner to any damages.” (3) “Okay, I destroyed the fence, but it was falling down already, so it’s really the owner’s fault, so he gets no damages.” And on and on, in a reductio ad absurdum stream of admissions and excuses.

These affirmative defense patterns have shown up with respect to some of Obama’s nastiest little pieces of personal history. When Jeremiah Wright’s sermons first surfaced, Obama denied knowing anything about them. When that denial failed, he claimed that he only had one or two exposures to this deranged level of hatred, so he didn’t make much of it. When that denial failed, he conceded that he’d heard this stuff often over the years, but wasn’t concerned about it, because he knew his pastor was a good man. (Which makes Obama either complicit in the statements or a fool.) Indeed, he even made a much-heralded speech about what a good man his pastor is. He then promised that he’d never abandon his beloved pastor. But when his pastor became dead weight, Obama dropped him so hard you could hear the thud.

The same pattern appeared when word got out about Obama’s connection with two self-admitted, unrepentant, America-hating terrorists. (That would be William Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, for anyone out of the loop here.) When caught, Obama again engaged in a perfect storm of affirmative defenses. (1) I don’t know them. [A lie.] (2) Okay, I know them, but not well. [A lie.] (3) Okay, I know them well, but we’re just good friends, not political fellow travelers. [A lie.] (4) Okay, we’re more than just good friends, because we served on a Leftist board and I sought political advice from him. And on and on. With every lie, Obama concedes, and then comes forward with a new lie.

The same pattern emerges with Rezko, with Obama freely ranging from “I didn’t know him,” to “I never took favors from him,” to “I didn’t take big favors from him,” to “I took a big favor from him, but I didn’t know it was a big favor.” It just goes ad nauseum, as if Obama is a machine, programmed to spew forth this endless flow of denial and concession. The guy is pathological in his inability to admit wrongdoing and his ability to prevaricate.

In an odd way, Obama’s approach to truth reminds me of how they used to break the news to patients about cancer — incrementally, very incrementally. I know this first hand, because this is what happened with my Dad. In his case, the following statements played out over the course of about a week: “Nothing’s wrong.” This was a lie. “There’s a slight anomaly on the tests, but nothing to worry about.” This was a lie. “There’s a tumor, but we’re sure it’s benign.” This was a lie. “The tumor is, in fact, malignant, but it’s completely treatable.” This, too, was a lie. “You have one year.” Finally, the truth. What you end up with is that, at the end of all the lies, cancer is cancer, and Obama’s past is Obama’s past.

The question then becomes whether American voters will be happy with the constant barrage of Obama lies, and will be willing to travel Obama’s incremental pathways to unpleasant truths, or if they’re at last going to rebel and say “Who and what are you?” And if they finally get the truth, and it’s pretty sure to be ugly will it matter?

I’d like to think that the truth will matter, just as I’d like to think that, for many Americans, the mere fact that he lied so compulsively will matter too. After all, that is one of the reasons they’ve grown to hate Hillary. My dream is that, no matter how perfectly polished and highly functional the Obama political machine is, the fact that Obama is still the core of that machine will be, in and of itself, an insurmountable problem for him.

My question then (in 2008) was whether voters would elect a man who lied so frequently and blatantly. My question now is whether America will recover any time soon from the disastrous effects of those lies.

UPDATE: Ron Fournier, who has stood by Obama rather steadfastly for the past five years, is disturbed to find that his idol has feet of clay. He rightly calls Obama on precisely what I’ve described above: the lie about the lie. I agree with everything Fournier has to say about Obama’s lie, except for the very last thing: “On history’s scale of deception, this one leaves a light footprint. Worse lies have been told by worse presidents, leading to more severe consequences, and you could argue that withholding a caveat is more a sin of omission.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Fournier. This is the worst lie a president has ever told the American people. To the extent presidents have lied before, they’ve done so for national security (every wartime president, including Obama himself); because they themselves were lied to, as was the case when Saddam Hussein’s self-created Potemkin village of WMDs led the Bush administration and most world leaders to believe that Hussein did indeed have WMDs; or because they were protecting themselves from their failings, as Nixon and Clinton did. Obama marks the first time ever that a president provably committed an act of fraud against the American people: He deliberately lied to people, knowing that they would believe that lie, in order to get them to change their position to their detriment based upon that lie.

It’s not this November lie that destroys Obama’s credibility. The November lie is the typical retrenchment lie of someone who was caught doing something bad. It’s the original lie — the enormous fraud committed against America — that should outrage every citizen.

Share this:

First, he denies everything except his own name, and he’d deny that too, if he could.
Who, Barry or Barack?

To your question: No. And wasn’t that the point of it all. Lies, deceit, questioning your own sanity [see: gaslighting]. Transforming America complete. We know longer trust (as if we had a lot of it initially) not any of them. Look around, do you see much of a spiritual life with anyone under forty? Are they applauding Snowden or booing Snowden or worse – no opinion. Morality – would that have anything to do with the 70% of black, single mothers, who have for all intensive purposes been fathered by the federal government, because who else is supporting the children.

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” – Joseph Stalin

LSBeene

Bookworm,

You are so right – and your foresight, wow, gotta admit, nothing wrong with wanting acknowledment for being spot on.

I am not an “Obama hater”. I do not like his policies. I do not like elitests attitudes (something that personally burned me badly in my 20’s). I do not like being outright lied to “If I told you my whole plan you’d object / are too stupid or simple to grasp it”. And I dislike and am continually frustrated the previously unimaginable lengths the press has and will go to in order to protect “their guy”.

For me the worst is Fast and Furious. Allow me a second, and no, you’ll not learn anything new, but maybe a decently thought out train of events that have not occured to some.

For F&F to work, as planned, thousands of guns, that are completely illegal to possess in Mexico, were walked, without the Mexican gov’ts knowledge or consent, across the border to known murderous thugs.

For F&F to work, as planned, hundreds of innocent Mexicans had to die. Wait? What? Yes, you read that right – and hear me out. The cartel’s M.O. was to shoot people, wipe the weapons, drop the weapons, and move on. The stated premise of F&F was that by following the guns to crimes they’d catch cartel bad guys and roll up the cartels.

FULL STOP.

The cartels had to use those weapons for this to work. Killing hundreds. Their M.O. was to wipe and drop the weapons – so the chances of catching them with the weapons was nil. So, if that is known, then the stated premise of catching the cartel thugs and getting them to turn falls flat.

About that time various branches of gov’t, not just the DOJ, but State, DOJ, and others were all, for some odd reason, before the first deaths, touting the “90% of all guns in Mexico used in crimes come from the U.S.”

In a criminal case, say in Pump & Dump stock fraud – they were priming the well. They were priming to outrage against weapons. The DOJ had no chance of catching cartel thugs who dropped their weapons, and, who, even if caught, were notorious for not speaking. Once in a Mexican prison or even protective custody, they’d be dead.

So – another purpose. “90% of all guns in Mexico come from the U.S.” (btw – total garbage).

For F&F to work as I see (and saw) it: Hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens had to die – all so Obama’s “Justice Department” could then go after mom and pop gun stores, re-write regulations, make strict anti-gun laws, and further an agenda.

And that’s if it worked as intended. Of all his scandals that one alone shows such a callous disregard for human life, premeditation, and a naked grab for reshaping our country and denying Constitutional rights.

And the press, those lovers of PC ideology, diversity, and multi-culturalism, did not care about all those beloved border hopping brown people they love to trot out when the political need arises.

They were complicit in the cover up of the murder of people that they use apparently only as stage props when it fits an agenda, but not when those people’s actual lives are on the line.

Thing THAT over.

LSBeene

*Think* (not thing) that over
(wow – what a way to end it badly)

Charles Martel

LSBeene, considering how very well you write and thing, a little mistake like that is something nobody really notices.

http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

See evil, kill evil. That’s all I need think about.

Ron19

I generally don’t watch TV shows, but can’t help being exposed to them. Likewise, movies.

But like my wife’s children and grandchildren, so many people think that all the lies in a show like Seinfield is a normal, acceptable way of life. They laugh at the lies knowing that they’re irregular relationships, and then go on to lie about so many little things, and a few big things, and expect to be accepted for that even when they are found out. The worst thing you can do to them is to point out that they are wrong.

Adolf Hitler and his closest associates knew this and acted on it to their own advantage. And to their nation’s disadvantage. And he was not the last politician to do so, by any means.

The truth matters to a hardcore minority of people, and this percentage never grows and a strong argument can be made that it steadily shrinks. As for the coutnry as a whole, it didn’t matter in 2008, didn’t matter in 2012, and we may discover that it still doesn’t matter in 2016.

This lie is huge, but it can’t be any larger than the “It’s not a tax!” then later “Ok, it’s a tax.” lie that was perpetuated just before it went to the Supreme Court.
The ONLY reason this lie is being reported on more often is because the media can’t ignore it. Too many ordinary people are coming forward to point out this lie. This sort of media dance is only possible thanks to how few pay attention to the Supreme Court or the details of the case.

(PS- I comment as “Book” on several sites, including the AOSHQ site, but I’m not affiliated with Bookworm. Just want to clear that up.)